• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

DAC in C48 in the year 2023

A

attym

New Member
I’m looking to get either a C47 or C48. I use an external phono stage that I’m very happy with (Decware ZP3) but and looking at both of these for the internal DAC. I have an extensive digital library of 16/44.1 up to 24/192 PCM files. I don’t have DSD.
I’m torn between the EQ and look of the C48 and the reviews of the “better” DAC in the C47. I’m trying to figure out if the DAC in the C48… while not as full featured as the one in the C47 will still be a great DAC for me. I was fully committed to a C48 but I’m not so sure.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I went through the same sinario years ago. I started with the c47 and loved its dac, but saw the c48 and got it for the tone control, and nicer quality chassis and connectors. Only to be kind of disappointed with the sound quality compared to the c47. The c47 is more open sounding and airier, the c48 had deeper bass but darker sounding.

I ended up going back to the c47 until now deciding I really don't need all that much preamp anyway. Just a nice dac with one or two analog inputs is fine.
 
Last edited:
McIntosh noted that the C48 has a Burr Brown 32 bit / 192kHz DAC but did not publish any info I can found on the specific Burr Brown model.

They also noted that this specification was for the USB digital input. I suspect it would be the same for the optical and coaxial inputs as well.
 
I’ve owned a number of McIntosh products, including CDPs, amps, tuners, and preamps. I’ll just say that each—even from the same era—sounded different in my system. Surprisingly different. And not just between tube and SS. Sometimes, oddly, the older or less expensive unit is a better fit. The only way to know which preamplifier is better for you is to audition them both in YOUR system.

(The experience @audiobliss had is not uncommon.)

If you can, I’d go through Audio Classics. Ask for Ryan or Steve. Either visit them in Vestal, NY (don’t know your location)—as they have both preamps in stock—or buy both and keep them for a week or so; and then return the one, for a full refund, that you find less suitable for your needs.

I say this because I’ve auditioned equipment in the store and been thrilled with it; only to discover it lacks synergy in my system at home. (Sometimes, I’ve ended up preferring the $500 option over the $6K option.)

AC also might suggest another more suitable Mac preamp (they have dozens and dozens, new and vintage). Good luck.
 
audiobliss said:
I went through the same sinario years ago. I started with the c47 and loved its dac, but saw the c48 and got it for the tone control, and nicer quality chassis and connectors. Only to be kind of disappointed with the sound quality compared to the c47. The c47 is more open sounding and airier, the c48 had deeper bass but darker sounding.

I ended up going back to the c47 until now deciding I really don't need all that much preamp anyway. Just a nice dac with one or two analog inputs is fine.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that’s the addition of the EQ section and that darkness could be dialed out. Anyways, I’m pretty sure I’m going C47 in the very near future.
 
Or if you can stretch the funds, go for a nice used C49. The dac should be a improvement over the C47.
 
Don't buy a Mac pre-amp because of the DAC, buy if for the other features you need. Loudness control, Graphic tome controls, Mode selector switch, record selector if you have recorders, power control if you use modern Mac amps, tuners, disc players, etc.

Then if you just have to have a Mac Dac there is the MDA 200, which you can buy later. I wouldn't as DACS are like phono cartridges back in the 70's and 80's when a new improoved model was always being introduced by some one weekly it seemed. Same goes for DAC's. By the time they are introduced and shipped to the dealer they are already obsolete by some one else. Then there is the matter of licensing, Even the newest Mcintosh pieces won't always work with the latest Apple products because Mcintosh won''t pay the extreme licensing fees to Apple. Thats why I also have a Mcintosh MB 200 Blue tooth recevier to use with various products to connect to the All MAc stereo system . For HT I use a Apple TV unit to feed my MX 151.
 
Hmm, I’ve seen this but haven’t received a clear answer, McIntosh and and Apple products don’t always work?

I should also clarify, I’m looking for a good preamp to match my MC302. I will use the DAC but am a vinyl guy. I honestly don’t see my digital library growing with the trends. I maxed out at 24/192 (mostly 16/44.1). I’d just like what’s included to sound good at doing that.

I like the idea of losing an extra box too. In terms of budget. C47 would be a reach but can get there. Same for C48 but looks a bit further. C2300, 2500, c49, 52 all too far of a stretch right now.
 
I cannot comment on sound quality differences with the C48 or other stuff I've not heard for a lot of reasons.

But I can provide a couple of caveats and comments about the C47 since I use one everyday.

I have two issues with the C47 that may not be show stoppers for you:

1. There is a "bug" in the DAC software that affects only the USB input such that the first 1 second of music in a track gets muted. This bug is not present on the optical or coax DAC inputs. The coax supports up to the bit rates you want (24/192) but if you ever want higher rates or DSD, you need to use the USB input and put up with the mute delay. I was told that this issue was not going to be fixed for the C47 - no firmware update would be made. I believe (unless it's been fixed) this is also an issue for the DA1 module as well. In my case, I stream via Roon from Qobuz and my own local files and have yet to need anything beyond 24/192 so the coax DAC input works great.

2. The front panel controls are not the best. They don't have a good feel and are finicky. The rotation between indents is too easy, and not definite so they're harder to control. In fact, the knob that rotates through inputs on my C47 seems to select inputs at random rather that in sequence (as it should). This is a defect that I am just too lazy to get fixed - there's no Mc service place near here. The volume control works OK. These functions work fine from the remote so I usually use that to change inputs. By comparison, the front panel controls on my C220 have a much better, more definite feel and work correctly and are great to use.

While I won't compare sound quality with the C48, I can say that I am very satisfied with the SQ of the C47 in my system which I like a bit more than the C220. And the C47 DAC sounds great to me.

I like the SQ of the phono section a lot too and it's the first MC phono section I've owned that did not add noticeable noise and distortion when in MC mode - compared to bunch of (admittedly older) SUTs and preamps like Mark Levinson and Klyne and Denon.

So if you do get the C47, you should spend some time comparing its phono section with your outboard unit. You might like it as well or better, or not (I don't know how your phono pre sounds) but I recommend you at least give it a try.
 
TSmith8605 said:
I cannot comment on sound quality differences with the C48 or other stuff I've not heard for a lot of reasons.

But I can provide a couple of caveats and comments about the C47 since I use one everyday.

I have two issues with the C47 that may not be show stoppers for you:

1. There is a "bug" in the DAC software that affects only the USB input such that the first 1 second of music in a track gets muted. This bug is not present on the optical or coax DAC inputs. The coax supports up to the bit rates you want (24/192) but if you ever want higher rates or DSD, you need to use the USB input and put up with the mute delay. I was told that this issue was not going to be fixed for the C47 - no firmware update would be made. I believe (unless it's been fixed) this is also an issue for the DA1 module as well. In my case, I stream via Roon from Qobuz and my own local files and have yet to need anything beyond 24/192 so the coax DAC input works great.

2. The front panel controls are not the best. They don't have a good feel and are finicky. The rotation between indents is too easy, and not definite so they're harder to control. In fact, the knob that rotates through inputs on my C47 seems to select inputs at random rather that in sequence (as it should). This is a defect that I am just too lazy to get fixed - there's no Mc service place near here. The volume control works OK. These functions work fine from the remote so I usually use that to change inputs. By comparison, the front panel controls on my C220 have a much better, more definite feel and work correctly and are great to use.

While I won't compare sound quality with the C48, I can say that I am very satisfied with the SQ of the C47 in my system which I like a bit more than the C220. And the C47 DAC sounds great to me.

I like the SQ of the phono section a lot too and it's the first MC phono section I've owned that did not add noticeable noise and distortion when in MC mode - compared to bunch of (admittedly older) SUTs and preamps like Mark Levinson and Klyne and Denon.

So if you do get the C47, you should spend some time comparing its phono section with your outboard unit. You might like it as well or better, or not (I don't know how your phono pre sounds) but I recommend you at least give it a try.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is very helpful feedback! I suspect all of my choices are different shades of great
 
attym said:
I’m looking to get either a C47 or C48. I use an external phono stage that I’m very happy with (Decware ZP3) but and looking at both of these for the internal DAC. I have an extensive digital library of 16/44.1 up to 24/192 PCM files. I don’t have DSD.
I’m torn between the EQ and look of the C48 and the reviews of the “better” DAC in the C47. I’m trying to figure out if the DAC in the C48… while not as full featured as the one in the C47 will still be a great DAC for me. I was fully committed to a C48 but I’m not so sure.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't overthink it, I've had a C48 since they first came out, and to be honest it still sound perfectly fine to me....I'ver never heard anything that makes me want to upgrade it at all really...
 
I have heard C-48, in fact a friend owns one and it is anything but dark. He uses a Denon 110 and it sounds fabulous using a MC 152 and a pair of XRT 28's. He also has an Ashly 3102 room EQ because of his speaker placement is in an Asymmetrical room. His XRT 28 response is +/- 2 db from 20 to 12,000 hz with a 4 to 6 db rolloff at 20,000 HZ. THAT C-48 feeding the Ashly and Mac power amp and Mac line arrays is a great combination if you want to hear all the details on great recordings. It will make your hearing cringe with bad recordings, too. I have XRT 28's, too, but;IMG_4038.jpeg with different electronics. Same story great sound unless you get a bad recording. There quite a few of them out there.
 
I happen to agree with twiii. I went with the C46 because of it's simplicity and tone controls. It does what I need and it doesn't try to do too much. I added a stand alone DAC and I'm perfectly happy.
 
attym said:
I got a C47. I’ve honestly never heard CDs sound this good. Whatever is going on here, I love it.
Click to expand...

Great. If you get a chance, it would be interesting to know how the C47 phono section compares with your Decware ZP3.
 
I chose my C47 over the C52. I decided that I wouldn't use the EQ, the DAC is the same (and excellent), the phono and headphone sections are the same, and didn't need another set of meters. Other than the headphones led blinking every now and then, it's performed great. It would be a good match with an MC302.
 
DAC's are like phono cartridges in the 60's and 70's.. Every time you turned around there was a better cartridge being introduced. Same goes today, so I wouldn't want to by a unit that is going to tie you down to one DAC. Especially when Mcintosh won't pay Apple's connection fee's. So if you are into newer Apple products your C-47 is incompatible. We can choose cartridges today just as we could back then. You should be able to choose DACS too. If you choose to change cartridges, and , then Dacs as you wish. Why not have tone controls so you can make further changes.

Besides I would want a full function pre-amp. With a Mode selector, Listen selector, Record selector, Loudness control, processor loops in both record and playback stages. The last one made was the C-40. Of course you would need a A Mcintosh MP100 for MC cartridges and a Rose Dac. Maybe a MEN 220 to balance and match your speakers to your room. So don't handicap your self. Maybe you want a MC 451 so you can great woofer control from the SS section and great imaging and smoothness for the mid and HF drivers.
 
Last edited:
TSmith8605 said:
Great. If you get a chance, it would be interesting to know how the C47 phono section compares with your Decware ZP3.
Click to expand...
I plan on doing that but it won’t be for a few weeks. I will report back when I do. I’m running a Dynavector 20x2H so I need to also figure out the best load settings for that on the C47.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom